Abercrombie settles race case for $40 million

[Schrodinger]

Didn't see this anywhere else...

Abercrombie settles race case for $40 million

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I'm somewhat of the thought that private businesses should be able to employ any hiring practice they want and set their own level of discretion.

Just as Hooters uses pretty and curvy women to hock their food, Abercrombie pitches their clothes to whites of middle to above average income (obviously)--so they'd naturally want to portray that image?

 

[CWRMadcat]

Pfff...stupid minorities whining again.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Didn't see this anywhere else...

Abercrombie settles race case for $40 million

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I'm somewhat of the thought that private businesses should be able to employ any hiring practice they want and set their own level of discretion.

Just as Hooters uses pretty and curvy women to hock their food, Abercrombie pitches their clothes to whites of middle to above average income (obviously)--so they'd naturally want to portray that image?

abercrombie sucks, so... I hope they rot.

Also fat chichs generally avoid working at hooters. The uniform makes them look fat.

 

[illustri]

I agree that companies have the right to discretion in their business practices, but the caveat being that other interests have the right to challenge that discretion if damages can be proven. Since this was settled however we're never to know.

BTW isn't a&f publically traded?

 

[Schrodinger]

Originally posted by: illustri
I agree that companies have the right to discretion in their business practices, but the caveat being that other interests have the right to challenge that discretion if damages can be proven. Since this was settled however we're never to know.

BTW isn't a&f publically traded?

Shouldn't the right of the business and the choices by the management override the "damages" that other "interests" claim, though? How can they even say they are "interests" in it when its a private entity...they have no claim to it.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: illustri
I agree that companies have the right to discretion in their business practices, but the caveat being that other interests have the right to challenge that discretion if damages can be proven. Since this was settled however we're never to know.

BTW isn't a&f publically traded?

Shouldn't the right of the business and the choices by the management override the "damages" that other "interests" claim, though? How can they even say they are "interests" in it when its a private entity...they have no claim to it.

Well thats interesting right? Should the right to challenge another entity's rights require you have some claim or control over them? I submit that in most cases it doesn't: take for example you would have the right to freedom of speech, but come shouting obscenities in my face or public and I can have the nice policemen come take you away. Or if you buy adspace in my local paper defaming my character I could take you to court for libel.

Now back to point I would say that these plaintiffs have some valid interest in challenging a&f, they are employees of the company. Now whether their specific claims are valid or not hasn't been decided here, but I maintain what no one side should simply "override" the other without adequate reason.

 

[imported_KirbsAw]

I think this is stupid. What about the places that hire all of a single type of minority?

 

[Schrodinger]

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: illustri
I agree that companies have the right to discretion in their business practices, but the caveat being that other interests have the right to challenge that discretion if damages can be proven. Since this was settled however we're never to know.

BTW isn't a&f publically traded?

Shouldn't the right of the business and the choices by the management override the "damages" that other "interests" claim, though? How can they even say they are "interests" in it when its a private entity...they have no claim to it.

Well thats interesting right? Should the right to challenge another entity's rights require you have some claim or control over them? I submit that in most cases it doesn't: take for example you would have the right to freedom of speech, but come shouting obscenities in my face or public and I can have the nice policemen come take you away. Or if you buy adspace in my local paper defaming my character I could take you to court for libel.

Now back to point I would say that these plaintiffs have some valid interest in challenging a&f, they are employees of the company. Now whether their specific claims are valid or not hasn't been decided here, but I maintain what no one side should simply "override" the other without adequate reason.

Yeah I'd agree with the particular ones that were employees but not the ones who were denied work neccessarily. Then again I'm not sure what to think of the whole thing. I can understand both sides to the argument. Figured this forum might have some interesting feedback 🙂

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Didn't see this anywhere else...

Abercrombie settles race case for $40 million

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I'm somewhat of the thought that private businesses should be able to employ any hiring practice they want and set their own level of discretion.

Just as Hooters uses pretty and curvy women to hock their food, Abercrombie pitches their clothes to whites of middle to above average income (obviously)--so they'd naturally want to portray that image?

i can see both points too... the way i see it, companies should just have a good reason for their discrimination and they should make it public. so if a&f wants to only hire white people because they want to portray that image, that's fine, but they should just come out and say it... "we only hire white people because we want to portray the image of the average WASP family's teenager"

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: illustri
I agree that companies have the right to discretion in their business practices, but the caveat being that other interests have the right to challenge that discretion if damages can be proven. Since this was settled however we're never to know.

BTW isn't a&f publically traded?

Shouldn't the right of the business and the choices by the management override the "damages" that other "interests" claim, though? How can they even say they are "interests" in it when its a private entity...they have no claim to it.

the interest of the welfare of the state

 

[Schrodinger]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Didn't see this anywhere else...

Abercrombie settles race case for $40 million

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I'm somewhat of the thought that private businesses should be able to employ any hiring practice they want and set their own level of discretion.

Just as Hooters uses pretty and curvy women to hock their food, Abercrombie pitches their clothes to whites of middle to above average income (obviously)--so they'd naturally want to portray that image?

i can see both points too... the way i see it, companies should just have a good reason for their discrimination and they should make it public. so if a&f wants to only hire white people because they want to portray that image, that's fine, but they should just come out and say it... "we only hire white people because we want to portray the image of the average WASP family's teenager"

Or particularly only when it can effect their bottomline (marketing). If it can be proven its just for something superficial like the store employees (not the people in catalogs) which, for sake of argument, doesn't effect it...then it could be grounds.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Didn't see this anywhere else...

Abercrombie settles race case for $40 million

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I'm somewhat of the thought that private businesses should be able to employ any hiring practice they want and set their own level of discretion.

Just as Hooters uses pretty and curvy women to hock their food, Abercrombie pitches their clothes to whites of middle to above average income (obviously)--so they'd naturally want to portray that image?

i can see both points too... the way i see it, companies should just have a good reason for their discrimination and they should make it public. so if a&f wants to only hire white people because they want to portray that image, that's fine, but they should just come out and say it... "we only hire white people because we want to portray the image of the average WASP family's teenager"

Or particularly only when it can effect their bottomline (marketing). If it can be proven its just for something superficial like the store employees (not the people in catalogs) which, for sake of argument, doesn't effect it...then it could be grounds.

well we don't even need to restrict it to marketing. just full disclosure at all times.

btw racial equality is considered to be a paramount interest of the state. that's why the government steps in these cases. it's the same justification for government intervention for example when a company is polluting too much.

 

[Brackis]

That store is the bane of America, they deserved a $100 million settlement.